Skip to main content
8:00 pm
to fill and that people could start enjoying tv again if you just have something better to offer than what is out there. c-span: alyona minkovski, we are out of time. thank you so much. >> that you for having me on. ♪ ♪ hopes. >> fred dvd copy of this pro gram call 1-877-662-7726. for free transcripts or to give us your comments about this program, visit us at q&a that york. also available c-span pot cass.
8:01 pm
>> tonight on c-span to cnn host and former news of the world and they're peers morgan testifies at a british inquiry into phone hacking and then a discussion about the future of north korea after the death of the leader. and later elected russia's recent elections and vladimir pier and. >> of the iowa caucuses and new hampshire primary are a series expected the 14 men who ran for president and lost and had a long-lasting impact. here is our lineup. tonight, williams jennings bryan . thursday, eugene debs. and then on saturday three-time governor of new york cal smith followed by businessman and member of the liberal wing of the gop, the contenders every night at ten eastern on c-span. have you tried the free radio
8:02 pm
rap? curious what users are saying. >> fast, easy-to-use, and visually appealing. the audio quality is insanely great considering it is free. it took me about ten seconds to learn how sit by and had to use it. >> anytime anywhere. live coverage of congress. you can also look to our interviews in including q&a, newsmakers, the communicators, and after words, available wherever you are. find out more. >> cnn host and former news of the world and they're testifying today before a british committee investigating phone hacking and the culture of the british press. the former editor said he had no reason to believe there was phone hacking at the tablet paper where he was in search.
8:03 pm
piers morgan is one of many witnesses to testify to the levinson inquiry. this is an hour and 40 minutes. >> they key very much. i will invite you, first of all, to take the oath please. >> iras whereupon blossoms of the the evidence i put forth will be the jews, coaches, and nothing but the truth. >> caseous. >> sarkozy mr. j., would not aln >> that is all right.c-span fine. if you need to, you will. [laughter] >> and have no doubt. >> comments. now, you >> thanks you very much. you provided us with to witnesse statements.of novber the first as november this yeara and ran for 15 pages.tement it is signed. is that your first witnessrgan?
8:04 pm
condments? >> yes. >> the second one is nine pages the 21st of november with the tt statement of truth. the stand by that statement? .> yes >> i think you were the youngest-ever editor at the age of 28, is that correct? >> i believe so, yes. >> and that youth has not since been surpassed. you then moved to "the daily mirror" between september 1995 and the 14th of may, 2004, is that correct? >> yes. >> and you are now, um, i think, um, an employee of cnn, and you,
8:05 pm
um, you do, is it, a daily show, "piers morgan tonight," which is very big in the u.s., i understand. >> clearly past due, but, yes, it is. >> thank you. may i is ask you two general questions? we know from your first statement that you were, as you describe it, de facto editor of "the sun"'s show biz column which, i think, is still called bizarre under calvin mckenzie. we've noted it's not uncommon for editors of leading tabloids to have come through the show biz columns of tabloid newspapers. why do you think that is so? >> because you basically constructing a mini newspaper every day. [audio difficulty] column like that. a newspaper in the sense that you're looking for a lead story, a second lead story, smaller stories, a picture. so the framework of a column
8:06 pm
like bizarre became a sort of working template, if you'd like, for potential future editors. and i'm sure that's why so many became editors. >> yes.. -- [inaudible] current preoccupation in celebrity and that the news values have very much focused on that sort of matter? >> well, no. i think the story patronizing when people say that because i think that in the end you have to be a good journalist to do a column like that, and you have to be a good journalist to do news and show biz stuff. and the art of being a good tabloid journalist is your ability to do both. i've always felt if you looked at some of the people who came through bizarre, people like martin dunn who went on to edit the new york daily news, and these are proper, serious news journalists. i don't think it can necessarily follow that because you do a column in your early years in the main about celebrity this means you are unfit to cover
8:07 pm
news. i think that's rather pompous. >> okay. can i ask you the second general question, the turnover of journalists between the tabloids and ask you about your experience which i know ended in may 2004. was there rapid turnover between tabloid newspapers or not? >> yeah. also between tabloids and broad sheets. i mean, they won't want to admit this, but quite a few people who have gone through the ranks of the broad sheet newspaper game have originated from the tabloids and vice versa. >> thank you. i need to ask you, now, another general question about the first two volumes of your diaries. because the first volume is called "the insider." second volume, "don't you know who i am?" ? the general question is, how accurate and reliable are these as historical documents? >> um, well, that's a moot point. i mean, they are my record of ten years of editing newspapers
8:08 pm
which were compiled not as a contemporaneous diary as i say in the introduction can, but from a collection of notes, memos, e-mails, stuff like that. and stuff i just kept on a sort of weekly basis. and i constructed the book in the diary form as best my memory served it. but is it a record of 100% historical import? i would say, no. >> no. but is it your best recollection at all material times? >> yes. >> now, in your first statement, please, mr. morgan, if i could take you to paragraph 15, which is our page 24194, an answer to a general question -- >> yeah. >> -- you say ethical determinations are central to the role of an editor of a major
8:09 pm
national newspaper and to the profession of journalism generally. during my time as editor of "news of the world" and "the daily mirror," ethical considerations were interwoven into my work and an omnipresent aspect of my daily life. so that was and is your credo, have i got that right? >> yes. >> and then paragraph 17, the code of practice, you say it was displayed prominently in the newsroom of "the daily mirror" and informed every editorial decision i made during my tenure of the "news of the world" and "the daily mirror." in the context of balancing privacy of individuals against the public interest. again, is that right? >> yes. >> and then paragraph 18, your recollection is compliance with the code of practice was a requirement of contracts of employment of journallests working with "the daily mirror"
8:10 pm
from at least around 2000. you don't think and, again, i'm paraphrasing, it was an expression requirement of your contact with editor, but then you say in your second statement it really was so obvious that it went without saying, you comply with the code of practice. is that correct? >> yes. >> paragraph 25 of this statement you deal with libel. you make it, you make it clear in your view that the libel laws in the united kingdom impose enormously onerous requirements. is that so? >> yeah, that was my belief when i was editing newspapers. obviously, i've witnessed nearly eight years after i left editing newspapers, so it relates really to my time as editor. it may well have changed since then. i haven't really followed it. >> okay. now, in paragraphs 28 and following of your first statement, you give us some examples of how ethical
8:11 pm
considerations informed your decision making. the first in paragraph 29, you were provided with a lead copy of -- leaked copy of the budget in 1996, and the upshot it was, if i can paraphrase the matter, you didn't think it right to publish it. so instead you handed it back. have i fairly summarized what, what happened? >> yes. >> you're taking the view it might cause economic harm if budget were, as it were, trailed in the newspaper before it was publicly announced, was that your thinking? >> well, we had a meeting with senior management which was very unusual because of potential implications of leaking the budget. we felt this was the correct way. and there were a number of considerations, one of which was we were not able because of the ticking clock element of the story to completely verify its
8:12 pm
veracity. so we weren't entirely sure we were dealing with 100% accurate documents. secondly, we felt the material contained in it could potentially cause market chaos and was that a responsible thing for a newspaper to be doing? did we need to do that? was it not a big enough story to actually just have the budget and create excitement? you know, looking back on it, there were a number of things we could have done with that story, i'm satisfied that we took the responsible course of action. although i would note that within the space of 24 hours i was castigated by "the guardian" on the night they praised me for what i had done, and then by the next day they had come around to thinking this was a terrible abrogation of my journalistic duties. so clearly, there were different views about what i'd done. >> thank you. and then in paragraph 31 cover inside more detail in your first diary, you deal with a story which broke in december 1997 involving the 17-year-old son of
8:13 pm
the then-home secretary being involved in selling cannabis. you explain how that story was confirmed with the then-home secretary. but you decided, um, in the circumstances which arose to publish the story but without identifying the boy concerned, is that correct? >> yes. >> thank you. and then in paragraph 33 the naomi campbell story, that, of course, is the story which ended up in the house of lords, um, a couple of years later, i think. is that right? >> yes. >> where the lordships were divided, as we all know, 3-2. >> yes. >> can i deal with paragraph 34 of your statement dealing with earl spencer's complaint in relation to his wife receiving certain treatment? this his complaint was upheld by the pcc, and then mr. rupert murdoch gave a public statement which you set out in paragraph
8:14 pm
34 where he said it is clear in this case that the young man -- i think that's you -- went over the top. i have no hesitation in making public this demonstration. now, i've reminded mr. morgan this is responsibility to the care with which he is an editor subscribes to in his employment. the company will not tolerate disrepute the best practices of popular journalism and then we'll return to that in a moment. may i ask you, though, a little bit in this first witness statement to deal with the issue of private investigators. we're now at paragraph 50 on our page 24202. you have no recollection of any personal involvement in use of private investigators during your time at the "news of the world." well, we're looking there at a period which, i think, was less
8:15 pm
than two years. to paragraph 51, "the daily mirror" would from time to time engage private investigators during my time as editor. such people were used for fact-checking articles and stories the journalists had uncovered or about which they had received a tip. do you know what sort of evidence private investigators would seek out for your newspaper, mr. morgan? >> i don't because i was never directly involved. this was dealt with through the news desk or the features desk, so an editor in that position, i think, probably like most editors you just wouldn't get directly involved. but certainly, the journalists all knew they had to operate within the law. that was enshrined within their contracts of employment, so i never had any concerns that they were breaking the law with regard to using private investigators. >> okay. well, i'll come back, too, to that issue if i may.
8:16 pm
um, the question, please, of unethical news gathering, presumably you've heard of the term "binnology," is that correct? >> i've actually become acquainted with it through the process of this inquiry. >> okay. on how many occasions did you deploy or take advantage of the services of benji, the bin man? >> i was trying to remember. i know that i vetoed at least one -- detailed at least one in my book in relation to a story about elton john. i can't honestly say how many times, but certainly we deployed him or his services several times. >> in your first book, 1998, the 13th of january, the entry says i don't know whether you've got the same -- >> yeah. >> -- paper edition. >> yeah. i think it's the same --
8:17 pm
>> page 185. you tell us benjamin pearl, a very strange guy who has peddled me a few stories in the past rang me this morning with an extraordinary offer. i've got all elton john's bank statements, he squealed in a high-pitched voice. i knew immediately where he had gotten them. his nickname is benji the bin man, he goes around collecting rubbish from outside celebrities' houses. loads the paper by his stuff, despite the seriously unethical way he acquires it. and then i paraphrase, he turned up with satchels of elton's documents including the bank statements. um, did can you have any qualms about that, mr. morgan? >> slightly. i mean, it italy -- it clearly is, you know, a strange thing to be doing. benji used to live in a house
8:18 pm
that had hundreds, if not thousands of rubbish bins. he live inside a sealed rubbish bin. it's a very unusual way to lead your life. did i think he was doing anything illegal? no. did i think it was on the cusp of unethical? yes. but it was interesting to me to see the testimony of david lee, the chief investigations editor from "the guardian" who decided to make somebody else pay for this information while bringing up all the details himself which is something "the guardian's" very good at. and since they've appointed themselves as the bishops of fleet street, i'd like to examine that practice because in a way it's not dissimilar. you know, they take the discarded remains from the tabloids, fill their papers with them but never have to pay anything. i mean, if i thought of what they'd deleted, then "the daily mirror" would be a lot more profitable. >> mr. morgan, we're not asking questions of mr. lee at the moment. we're, i'm afraid, asking questions of you.
8:19 pm
>> sure. >> your book says you use this exact language, despite the seriously unethical way he acquireed it, not just on the cusp of unethical behavior, it's on the wrong side of the line, wouldn't you agree? >> i don't know, actually, because if you throw something away, you're discarding it. so you clearly have no more use to it, and it's going to go down to the rubbish tip where everyone knows they help themselves -- >> i'm not sure they can actually, mr. morgan. i'm not sure they can, but you could get some legal advice about that. >> you can't go to rubbish pits? >> no. i don't think you can, mr. morgan. i think that property in the discarded rubbish probably belongs to the local authority once it's on their tip. but are you seriously suggesting that the person who's thrown away rubbish, in this case mr. elton john, has any expectation that it might end up in the hands of a journalist?
8:20 pm
>> well, it wasn't him, actually, it was his manager -- >> yes, his manager, pardon me. yes. >> yeah. >> the same principle applies, doesn't it? >> you know, i think you throw rubbish into the street, then, you know, i just throw it out there. i wonder how unethical it is if that appears in a newspaper? i mean, it's rubbish, isn't it? >> okay. private investigators, have you heard of someone called steve wickmore? >> i have since this all blew up, yeah. i wasn't aware of him before. >> when were you, you first aware that, um, 45 of the "daily mirror"'s journalists were identified by the information commissioner positively to have been involved in the commissioning, in his view, of unlawful transactions by
8:21 pm
mr. steve wickemore? >> was it published in 2006? is. >> it was, yes. were you aware of it at all then? >> i was actually working in america. i'd left newspapers two years before, so that was when -- i vaguely remember noting it when it was published in the papers at the time. >> the information commissioner identified 681 transactions is the term he used which he considered amounted to breaches of data protection law and 45 named journalists at the "daily mirror." are you saying you weren't aware of any of that happening at the time after you were editor? >> i'm not aware of any of the specifics. but i'm also not aware that any of those journalists were ever arrested or charged or prosecuted or convicted or anything. so he may have a view about the nature of those investigations,
8:22 pm
and the paper may well have had a very different view. >> but what view did you have of what the journalists were doing at the time regardless of the view the information commissioner might have had? >> well, the journalists were obliged under their contracts of employment to work within the law. and the only possible exception to that was if you were deploying a public interest effect. that was the only possible excuse you could have for going against the law. >> but were you in general terms what the sort of information the journalists were seeking from, from mr. wick emore? namely directory numbers, vehicle registration marks, that that sort of thing? were you aware of that? >> no. [inaudible conversations] >> your responsibility as editor to be aware of what your journalists were doing at least in general terms? >> well, i would say the average editor is probably aware of about 5% of what his journalists
8:23 pm
are up to at any given time m. >> okay. >> on every newspaper. >> were you aware of the sort of money that was being spent on mr. wickemore? even if one confined it to the 681 positively-identified transactions according to the information commissioner's evidence, the figure would be anything between 53,000 and 80,000 pounds? many were you aware of that at the time? >> no. >> who would be responsible for authorizing that level of expenditure? would it be the managing editor? >> uh, i think, i think so, yeah. i think at the mirror it's all pretty tightly run through the managing editor's office and from the desk editors themselves, the news editors, the features editors and so on. it would all be done at that level. and it didn't come across my desk as far as i have any recollection of, so that's why i don't have any memory of any of the specifics on this.
8:24 pm
but i do want to reiterate here, you know, none of this has ever been proven. i mean, these are just things where people said, well, we believe this. >> mr. morgan, i'd be very grateful if you would answer mr. jay's questions rather than enter into a debate with him. i'm sure we'll get on much more quickly. >> okay. no problem. >> i may come back to that issue. but the issue of phone hacking which i am obliged to ask you about, page 279 of your, the first volume of your diary which is an entry for the 26th of january, 2001. >> yeah. >> just bear with me one minute while i find it.
8:25 pm
four lines into the entry for the 26th of january, someone suggested today that people might be listening to my mobile phone messages. apparently, if you don't change the standard security code that every phone comes with, then anyone can call your number, and if you don't answer, tack in the standard four-digit code to hear all your messages. i'll change mine just in case, but it makes me wonder how many public figures and celebrities are aware of this little trick. when were you first made aware of this little trick? >> well, according to this friday, 26th of january, 2001. >> were you aware of it before? >> not as far as i'm aware, no. >> who made you aware of this little trick? >> i have no idea. i'm sorry. it was ten years ago, and i can't remember. >> can you assist at all with
8:26 pm
the context? um, if you look -- the staff of the entry which deals with something else altogether, just refresh your memory. >> uh-huh. >> i'll ask you, too, to think hard. who -- you don't necessarily have to identify the someone who suggested it to you, but whether it was another journalist, whether it was a friend, can you help us at all? >> if i can't remember who it is, then obviously i can't, i can't narrow it down to a genre. >> okay. >> i can't remember. >> to you recall an interview in 2007 with the press gazette in which you said, and i quote: as for clive goodman, i feel a lot of sympathy for a man who's been the convenient fall guy for an investigative practice that everyone knows was going on at
8:27 pm
almost every paper in fleet street for years. >> yes. >> now, why did you say that? >> well, that was the rumor at the time, i mean, it was exploding. i wasn't there, i hadn't been there for three years, but everyone you talked to said he was being made a scapegoat. this was a widely prevalent thing. i wasn't aware that it was widely prevalent in any specific form. i was hearing these rumors like everybody else. the reality is that it certainly seems to have been much more widespread at one newspaper, and we now know that the "the guardian" also phone hacked, so you had two newspapers. so, certainly, it was wider, apparently, than just clive goodman. but i'm not going to get into rumor mongering because that's not really the point of this inquiry, i don't think. >> but were you rumor mongering when you had the interview with the press gazette in 2007, or
8:28 pm
were you speaking from your own experience? >> no, i was just passing on rumors that i'd heard. >> was this a practice which, if we may add a third newspaper to the mix, was taking place within "the daily mirror" before 2004? >> i do not believe so, no. >> you don't believe so or -- >> we're going to break away momentarily from this british inquiry and let you know you can watch and continue to watch online newspaper
8:29 pm
was doing at? >> doing what? >> phone hacking amongst other things. >> no. if you listen to the tape, i played it the other day to remind myself, i go to entry question in the and she cuts me off because i know exactly where she's going and she's talking about the kind of what i guess would be described as the dark
8:30 pm
arts of newspaper investigations, whether that's paparazzi photography. and i was responding in general terms. you could hear the tape back in real-time you can see that. i didn't hear her say phone tapping. i certainly wasn't alluding to phone hacking. i was talking in a general way about the practices of an investigation, the nature by which the definition cannot sound quite an edifying. >> the third parties who you were referring to, while -- who were those third parties in general terms of? >> people like that private investigators, anybody who had been in the paparazzi photographers. >> what was the private investigators doing which fell within the dark arts? >> i don't know specifics. i'm talking about the generalization of the investigative work. so, you know, people don't understand how stories get into newspapers, or how in detail of
8:31 pm
the news reports get on television. the way that stories are gathered is a way they are processed. it doesn't make it illegal. >> i just wonder what you were intending to encompass by third parties and private investigators, mr. morgan. what activities were they up to on your behalf? >> i don't know specifics, as i've said to you. i think i've given the range of things from, you know, the rubbish we talked about from paparazzi photography, to staking people out in their homes. it's not the kind of work that sounds that edifying, but every news organization will do it and they progress of gather news. it doesn't matter if wright brothers sheeter, television company or tabloid. >> are you saying he didn't hear him mention people who tap
8:32 pm
peoples phones? >> no. if you listen to the tape back you can see i didn't hear her. >> the transcript says, admittedly, people tap peoples phones, people take secret photographs, and the music i know but. and to be fair she interrupt you again. >> i've already tried to answer on your first point before she mentioned phone tapping. i didn't hear her say phone tapping. she rattles off a list of stuff, and if you listen to it in real time i think you would see that. >> okay. another interview which is in "gq" magazine, should be under your tab 17 i hope, mr. morgan, when pierce met -- yet. >> quite recent.
8:33 pm
>> no, no, it's not. >> it's a reprint of an article which was published in april 2007. that's right. but the version we're looking at was later. same sort of phenomena and as we saw in -- >> yes. >> it was reported. unfortunately the way it is printed off it's quite difficult to get these things off the internet, it's about 13 pages in. >> i've got the page is. >> when they pull out the large notepad and she starts interviewing you, and the question she puts to you at the bottom of the page, what do you think of the "news of the world" reporter who was richly found guilty of tapping the world post? did you ever allow that when you
8:34 pm
were there? well, i was there in 94-95 before mobiles were used much in that particular trip wasn't noted that. i can't get too excited about it. is pretty well-known that if he didn't change your pin code when you're a celebrity you bought a new phone. and reporters could render mobile, tapped in to the factory setting number and hear your messages. that's not planting about someone's house, which is what some people seem to think was going on. so when you say there it was pretty well known, are you referring to what was pretty well known -- what period of time would you say was pretty well known? if i can ask the question it away. >> i know from a book i became aware of it in early 2001, and i have faint memories of that after this gathering, members of
8:35 pm
public. from what i hear this wasn't a great trade secret. but my memory is not great about this. it was a long time ago. >> okay. and then after you've expressed a view about the seriousness, i mean, did that indicate to us that you didn't think it was particularly serious? >> no. i think there's been a misconception built up that this involved journalist breaking into peoples houses and planting bugs in their phones. i was really talking about the seriousness between that and what is actually a very simple thing to do for a mobile phone. and something that i'm told, although i have no evidence myself, was widely known to the public. and the fact they use to do it to each other. >> ms. gamble as you it's an invasion of privacy though, and you say yes. but loads of newspaper journalist were doing it.
8:36 pm
clive goodman was being made a scapegoat for a very widespread practice. you are making clear that what we all believe was in april 2007, is that correct? >> yes. it seems to have been brought up. >> you were sticking your neck quite far, weren't you, mr. morgan, and very widespread practice, loads of journalists were doing it. you are making segments there which would suggest at least that you're basing yourself on personal knowledge, even if other people might have told you, wouldn't you agree of? >> no, i wouldn't agree. >> but why did you say he was made a scapegoat for a very widespread practice? >> well, i would've thought that subsequent events have shown that he was made the scapegoat. because it's the fact. >> in april 2007, we were
8:37 pm
looking at one individual, mr. goodman, and one private investigator, mr. mulcaire, that not many people were saying that it was a very widespread practice and that individuals happen to know that it was a very widespread practice. >> i see your point but it's not the point i'm making. the rumor mill which is always extremely noisy and often not entirely accurate, just endless rumors that it is spread a lot further than clive goodman. subsequent events have shown that to be the case. so i do think he was made a scapegoat. and having known him when i was in the "news of the world" i felt sorry for him. >> couple of questions further on, would you like it if someone listened to your messages? oh, they used to do it to me. who was they? >> again, that was the rumor
8:38 pm
middle and that was my concern when the person who i can't remember said to me that they might be hacking your phone's. what is that? and they told me. i have been told before doing it to me to my investigation which i know you may want to refer to later. i get no specifics, no proof or evidence of that. >> and then you say no, i didn't like it. suggested the subject agrees that uniform or about who is doing it to you than you are telling us now, mr. morgan. can you -- >> i didn't like the thought of it. if it was true. i have actually no hard evidence that it was true but i didn't like the idea of it. it certainly makes sense to me because some stuff was leaking at the time emac to the rumor mill you're referring to embrace your newspaper of being amongst the perpetrators of? >> not that i remember, no. >> come on, mr. morgan. your newspaper was near the top of the list, wasn't it?
8:39 pm
>> top of the list of what? >> of the perpetrators, those who were carrying out this sort of practice. you all know that. >> you also will know that not a single person has made any formal or legal complaint against the "daily mirror" for phone hacking, not one. so why would you say that? >> i'll continue with what you told ms. gamble just to complete this line of questioning. but with new technology comes new condition and new issues and this has brought the practice out in the open and it won't happen anymore, celebs get a lot more privacy now than they used to. so you believed him is this right that this practice was coming to an end, is that so, in april -- >> i certainly felt with clive goodman the practice would be dead in the water, yeah. >> had you listened to recording of what you need to be illegally obtained voicemail messages?
8:40 pm
>> i do not believe so, no. >> you either did or you didn't. i don't think the question of belief. have you listen to recordings of what you need to be illegally obtained voice bill messages? >> i do not believe so. >> well, you know about the mail online peace, which i think is your tab 22 for the 19th of october, 2006. can i invite you to look at that, please? it's going to be under our tab one in this second volume. we are working slightly different volumes. it's about 10 pages in to that one. >> thank you. it's dated the 19th of
8:41 pm
october, 2006. it's quite a french headline, but doesn't matter. i'm sorry for introducing me to this monster, so we've got our bearings there. and what you say at the start of this piece is that it was you who introduced palmer gardening to edit mills. that's what you say, isn't it? >> yes spent i don't see -- lead up develop our celestial me to read them out. but you explain that you introduced heather mills to call after the show. and then we know what happened next, as it were. i'm going to cut straight to the quick. right in the of this page, stories soon emerged that the marriage was in trouble. do you have that sense of? >> yes. i do, yes. >> at one stage i was played a
8:42 pm
tape of a message paul had left from heather on her mobile phone. can you remember the circumstances, mr. morgan? >> well, i can't discuss where i was played at people who played it. to do so would be to compromise a source and i can't do that. >> i'm not sure about that, mr. morgan. you can discuss in general terms what it was, can't you? >> actually no, i can't. >> it was a tape of a voicemail message, wasn't it? >> i'm not going to discuss where i heard it or who pleaded to me for the reasons i discussed but i don't think it's right. in fact, the inquiry has already stated to me don't expect it to identify sources. >> no, but i think we do expect you to identify what is obvious to anyone reading it. is that you listen to a tape of a voicemail message, is that correct? >> i listen to a tape of a message, yes. >> it was a voicemail message,
8:43 pm
wasn't it? >> i believe it was, yes. >> then you get in more detail here than what you heard. it was heartbreaking, the couple had a tiff. heather fled to india and paul was pleading with her to come back. you gave in saying something indeed antiphon as you said you listen to all of that. if you know that that was unethical? >> not unethical. >> why not. >> it doesn't necessarily follow listening to somebody speaking to someone else is unethical. >> on the tape of a voicemail message you didn't think that was unethical. >> it depends on the circumstances in which. >> can you tell something about the circumstances that might lead us to believe it was not unethical? >> i'm afraid i'm can't, no, i'm not going to do anything that would identify the source of. >> the source would only someone who is participating in the same
8:44 pm
unethical activities you were, isn't that true of? >> you are presenting it is unethical. >> let's give it this way, think about it this way, mr. morgan. without identifying your source, the only person who would also be able to listen to the message is the lady in question, or somebody authorized on her behalf to listen to it, isn't that right? >> possibly. >> well? >> sorry, what did you expect me to stay? >> or another possibility if there is one, i think. >> well, i think, i can't go into details of this but without customizing a source and i'm not going to do that. >> i am perfectly happy to call
8:45 pm
lady mccartney to give evidence as to whether she authorized you to listen to her voice mails. if she didn't, if she did she may say she did in which case you're not compromising anybody. but if she didn't, then we can proceed on the premise that it is somebody else, can't we? >> what we know for a fact about lady heather mills mccartney is that in their divorce case, paul mccartney stated as a fact that she had recorded their conversations and given them to the media. >> well, maybe i will do that been. can you help us, please. it's approximately when the event described here took place, namely you listening to the
8:46 pm
message? >> i believe the early part of 2000, 2001 but a kerry member exactly when. >> so we are clearly in the era when you're the editor of the "daily mirror," aren't we? >> i believe so, yes. >> was resource and employee of the "daily mirror"? >> i'm not going to go any details about the source. >> i don't think you'd be identifying the source if you would tell us whether or not the employee or the individual was an employee of the "daily mirror." can you not to? >> i'm not going to start any trail that leads to the identification of the source. >> did you listen to johnson's voice no messages in relation to ericsson? >> no, i did not. >> do you recall a lunch at the "daily mirror" hosted by victor blank on the 20th of september, 2002, when you advise
8:47 pm
johnson to change her pin number and you started mimicking her swedish accent? do remember that occasion? >> no, i did not and with the specifics but i think of them are coming to a lunch. breaking it down into two parts, might you have advised her to change her pin number? >> i don't recall anything like that. >> mr. bin burghardt in also at the lunch, indeed sitting next to or placed to you? >> he did come to one of the largest. the british telecom sky? >> yes. >> he came to one of the lunches but i don't know which one. >> did you tell him he should tell his customers to be more careful about changing their pin numbers? >> i don't recall that. >> might you have told him that? >> since i had been warned, it's possible, yeah.
8:48 pm
>> can i tell you, or put the rather common as generally as i can the circumstances in which suggests you did listen erika johnson's voicemail, a competitor of yours had hacked into her voicemail, sorry, i'm not going to go into the details of that, they were then posting about this in a pub, and then someone told someone close to you to let it be known to you that this is what happened, and then you decided that you, in other words, the mayor, hacked into erika johnson's voicemail as well and that is precisely what happened? >> absolute nonsense as far as i'm concerned. >> none of that is true, is that right? >> i detail in my book how i was simply told that erika johnson
8:49 pm
was having an affair with ericsson. i rang her agent who i knew very well. she came back and confirmed it. >> page 330 of the insider i think. mr. morgan. the entry for the 18th of april, 2002 where you say you have to sit down for this one. are you with me? richard wallis, he had flown into my office looking even more please with himself than usual. and i could tell from the wicked grin on his face this one, a big one as well. he never told, you never said after what his source or who his source was, do you? >> not here, no.
8:50 pm
>> may be the reason for your difference is you didn't want to set out precisely who are what the source was because you knew that would be a bit tricky to put it mildly, would you agree with that? >> i wouldn't agree with that, no. >> and it's right, you did on erika's agent, and then there were various exchange. can i ask you to deal with the entry for the 21st of april. the last line, i traded is all too close friends of the rica. what was that a reference to? >> well, i had a conversation and she doesn't want to be named
8:51 pm
on the record, but she would be happy for me to say close friends of erika, which she was. >> but isn't that a reference to whoever was the source in the first place rather than erika's agent who he spoke to to confirm whether or not the story was correct? >> no. i think it's so but it. if you read from -- [inaudible] it looks like he's freaking her out. quote, she says she was alive but i attribute this all too close friends of erika, i thought it's fairly obvious. >> okay. you've seen, i think, this statement which is in our bundle, just give you the tab in a moment. tab nine, mr. morgan.
8:52 pm
>> yeah. >> if you look at the bottom right hand side, page 24227, -- >> it's actually not numbered, i don't think. >> if you look at the bottom right hand side of each page, do you see a long number? >> i'm looking at -- >> it's going to be the third page. >> okay. >> the paragraph beginning in the middle of the page, another example of the lack of corporate governance at the mayor was the unfettered activities of the showbiz team. are you with me? on the 22nd, is that where the
8:53 pm
showbiz journalists were based? >> yes. i think so, yes. >> eyewitness journalist carrying out repeated privacy infringements using a well-known technique tacking to the voice no systems of celebrities, the friends, moses and public relations executive you open up the frequency of the hacking activity gave me the impression that hacking was considered a bomb standard journalistic tool of gathering information. example i would on occasion here to or more members of the showbiz team discussing what they heard envoy spent openly across their desks. one of the reporters should be the technique give me an demonstration of how to hack into voicemails. the practice seemed to be comment on other newspapers as well, journalists and "the mirror" seem to know that their counterparts were also listen to voice no messages because on occasion i had numbers of "the mirror" team joking about having deleted a message from the
8:54 pm
voicemail in order to ensure that no journalists from the sun would get the same scoop by hacking in and hearing it themselves. is that something you knew about, mr. morgan? >> no. >> you were quite hands-on, weren't you? you had come up through showbiz journalism. you were close to the showbiz journalists on the 22nd floor, weren't you? >> they worked for me, and they were good at the job enacted me take a keen interest at what they were doing? >> i took a keen interest in everything they were doing. >> so this sort of thing was going on quite as a standard of journalistic tool, something you would likely to know about and, indeed, it was going on. wouldn't you agree? >> probably, yeah.
8:55 pm
>> so i think it follows that your evidence must be that it wasn't going on. or maybe your evidence is it was going on. and you assistance, please? >> i have no reason or not she believe it was going on. >> but what did you yourself know from your own perception of what was going on? did you see this sort of thing going on? >> no,. >> are you sure about that? >> 100%. i also point out high good is a convicted criminal. >> you have told us that several times in the second witness statement, but again you come close to arguing rather than giving us evidence. can i just ask you a number of other points on what mr. pip well says. he says as well, page 242 a.
8:56 pm
eight, the fourth page, six lines, so five lines from the bottom, occasionally when big stories emerged he, that is you, would ask us, myself, about the source of our information. whether or not the paper would face a libel action of publication if the story turned out to be wrong. is that correct? >> sorry, can you repeat that? >> is five lines from the bottom. you asking him about the source of their information. occasionally he said, is backlit? >> i had very little to do with mr. tidwell at all. i have no recollection of any conversations with him ever about the source of any story. >> as a generality just talking about your practice rather than
8:57 pm
a specific case, would you ask your journalists about source of the information? >> not usually, no. >> on occasion would you? >> very occasionally. >> so the top of the next page where mr. tidwell says from my expense of working in newspapers, news editors and editors are supporters for the source of the story as a matter of course. libel action or having an apology, their number one concern, is that right or not? >> no. >> are you thinking to distance yourself from the sources because the sources were talking about are the fruits of phone hacking? >> no. >> and two pages further on, our
8:58 pm
page 24231, four lines from the top of the page, where mr. tidwell says there is however an undeniable pressure to deliver scoops, is that right or not? >> well, if you're a tabloid newspaper he worked for one, there was a convention would try to come up with some stories, yes. >> he continues, exclusive to sell newspapers especially sunday newspapers, every journalist is under pressure to bring them in. would you agree with that statement or not? >> generally you're under pressure to bring a story, certainly it's in the job description. >> for example, mr. morgan would regularly send out four-star e-mails berating journalists are not bring in enough exclusives. these e-mails would often be quite menacing in town. is that correct or not? >> i would quibble with many but
8:59 pm
certainly occasionally put a rocket up there collective backside if i felt they were not performing well. >> have you seen sentencing remarks of mr. justice beecher in connection with the criminal proceedings against mr. tidwell? >> is that in -- is a tiered? >> yes, it is. i just have to find it, one moment. just bear with me because i know your bundle has been tabbed in a slightly different way. i'm not sure that you got this, mr. morgan. >> i might have a.
9:00 pm
i think i have it, if it's, it's number two and three and four here in my -- >> is it behind someone is whispering to me, hopefully that it is behind your witness statement. behind -- >> i think i've got it, yes. >> just one part of it i want to ask you about, or, but i'm not going to ask about the particular circumstances. he says, sorry, he, mr. justice beecher, says on page five about 10 lines from the bottom of the page, five of the sensing remark on i also take into the fact that at the time there was no formal code of conduct for journalists for the "daily mirror." is that correct or not? >> know, i believe there was.
9:01 pm
i think, a relation to the convention code of conduct which was on display in the newsroom. there wasn't an individual one for the "daily mirror" but journalists were expected to adhere to the code. >> okay. there was no guidance from their superiors or from the in house lawyers, would you agree with that? >> i wouldn't, no. there was regular guidance from lawyers in particular. >> and then he continues, and that there was evidence of a culture of advanced information about tips and share dealing with in the office. would you agree with that? >> i would dispute that. >> you don't think there was any culture of that sort in the daily mayor at the time at all, is that right? >> no, i don't. certain journalist did. i don't think there was a
9:02 pm
culture of this at all. >> so i think you're one of them, weren't you, that you bought 67,000 pounds of shares in the company called -- the day before it was picked by the "daily mirror" i think on the 18th of january 2000, is that right? >> yes. >> and it culminated in the pcc upholding a complaint, technical breach that occurred, but no more than that. and the dci after a four-year investigation not taking the matter any further, is that right? >> yes. >> although recently i think your position, mr. morgan, that you only purchase 20,000 pounds worth of shares, is that right? >> no, that wasn't my position. i told my company be neatly how many shares i bought.
9:03 pm
>> for the dcc's adjudication refers, the first adjudication referred to only 20,000 pounds worth of shares, didn't it? >> i believe so, yes. >> wasn't that based on the information that you provided the pcc? >> not that i provided. the company did. >> which company? >> i think it was trinity mirror, wasn't it? >> it must've been information which you provided trinity mirror for them to provide to the pcc, can we not agree about that? trinity mirror would not know unless you told them. >> the teddy bear were well aware of what they think 10 hours of the story first emerging exactly how me shares i bought. >> based on information you provided, is that correct, mr. morgan? >> yes. >> one way or another they were under the impression, incorrect
9:04 pm
it seems, that it is 20,000 pounds worth of shares, not 67,000, is that right? >> who was under the impression? >> "trinity mirror" and thereafter the pcc, are we in agreement about that? >> no, we are not because i keep saying, just to clarify, i told the teddy bear exactly how many shares i have bought. >> that you how it is that the wrong information than was provided to the pcc. >> i believe a come it took a few, there was certain his of information which is not been made public which had led to other people involved in the scandal constructing a story based around the secrets -- sequence of events which you're reading about and total sums of money to reading about and time of purchase of shares they were reading about. and the company felt, for better or for worse, this was information they didn't put in the public domain. it would expose other people
9:05 pm
involved for telling a false story, which is pretty much what happened to. >> the difference between the 20,000 pounds and 67,000 pounds of shares was based on the fact that some of the shares were put into your personal equity plan, and the balance of the shares were purchased in your wife's name. have i got that right? >> i think so, yeah. >> can't think of the mode why the should have been provided in the first instance to the bbc. could you help a? >> you have to ask the "trinity mirror." they would want to do that. i have read the adjudication here to remind myself, and i've read why the "trinity mirror" to do. i've tried to outline their reasoning but i think the further details on this you have to ask them.
9:06 pm
>> may i ask you please about one other entry in your diary. page 269. 28th of july, 2000 where you say we were offered a transcript of a phone conversation between james hewitt and anna. my moment was addressed and you don't indicate what you kill piers morgan? it appears maybe i don't, i don't know. another call expands on his thoughts saying a hit man who wants to take that for 20,000 pounds. how was this all fleet to the
9:07 pm
telegraph diary. some bloke from south america guns me down in soho. why did you say dodgy transcript? >> well, i would have thought somebody planning to assassina assassinate, i think of a hitman as rather dodgy. >> it might be that the dodginess relates to the circumstances which the transcript was obtained, is that not a possibility hear? >> know, because i believe that the dodgy aspect i was referring to actually, i was hoping that this was not an accurate record of the conversation that had taken place. >> okay. can ask you please about paying police officers, is that something which happened at the "daily mirror" whilst you were editor's? >> i have no reason to believe so, no. >> are you saying by that that
9:08 pm
it was not brought to your attention to? >> yeah, i've never been made aware of any evidence of that at all. >> can i ask you please to clarify one entry in the diary, not sure actually that we pre-notified you of it, but forgive me if we didn't. it relates to evidence that was given to the culture and media select committee in 2003. do you recall that? >> i recall appearing, yes. >> in your position on that occasion, have i got this right, standards in the tabloid press have improved in the previous few years, is that correct? >> yes. yes. >> and then there were, for the
9:09 pm
paragraph which i will miss out, then you say later, rebekah excelled herself by virtually admitting she had been illegally getting information. i called her. she apologized. that's what i should never be seen or heard in public. i'm not going to ask you about that particular sentence, but why do is ask is whether your reference to dropping the tabloid act at the last minute was a general reference or general acceptance illegally paying policemen was a practice which went on in the tabloid press generically? would you agree with that? >> no. >> why did you call the bank for dropping the tabloid back at the last minute? >> because it was getting huge attention in the press and was clearly a mistake. >> in what sense a mistake?
9:10 pm
>> i think she accepted it was a mistake but i can't remember at the time but i think -- [inaudible] >> but from our standpoint was a mistake that you should have said it, or was it a mistake because it was untrue? do you see the dissensions? >> i have no idea if it was true or not. >> okay. there's another incident which caught my attention in the insider, when a journalist was put undercover back in the palace for a number of weeks. do you recall that? we might be hearing from him at some stage, the journalist is a mr. ron harry. was that something you organized? >> yes, it was.
9:11 pm
>> why? >> because on the face it appeared to be a matter of security breach, involving the royal family which is exactly what it turned out to be. >> well, that's when you instigated, of course, was in its? >> rather after. >> did you publish any stores as a result of this, you did a? >> we did, yet. it led the news for about a week. >> did you feel that was in the public interest? >> absolutely. >> okay. y., tremont? >> well, because we expose a huge series of loopholes in the security system surrounding the senior member of the royal family, which was so easy to expose that we could easily have been a terroristic and if we had been terrorist and not journalists the royal family, sitting members may not be here today. so it's hard to imagine anything
9:12 pm
more in the public interest than that. >> okay, sorry to go back in time, i know we're not going and considerable way back in time to the seventh of july, 1994, page 40 of the insider. this is the entry to july 1994. >> yeah. >> this is what you described as an intriguing tale about the fema switchboard operator chat it up, obsessed with him tracking down his address and testing him big time. this is a story which further investigation you didn't publish, is that correct? >> that's right. >> and you explain why that there was evidence that the fema
9:13 pm
switchboard operator was psychiatrically disturbed or ill? in the music lots of people break down when we confront them. and lots threaten to kill themselves. was that an accurate statement in your diary? >> yeah. i don't know what i mean by lots but i think is more of a general sense that when people get confronted, you know, they do tend to play that card. >> and then you say there's a difference between women like this. i could not live with myself if we had expose her on page 17, and then she had killed herself. what is the difference of? >> between the pedophile and someone who runs a switchboard? >> yes. >> i would have thought it was self-evident spent but explained to us please in context.
9:14 pm
>> one is potentially abusing and raping of children and the other one is manning a switchboard. >> but the pedophile is relevant time are presumably not doing those things, you're exposing them, aren't you? just because they have been pedophiles in the past. >> i certainly think, i sort of think it is something in the public interest to expose pedophiles, yes. >> can you say i'm developed a curious moral code as a good pick sometimes the job feel a bit like pain playing god in pes lives. is that an accurate description in slightly flawed language of what a job of a tabloid newspaper entailed? >> authority speaking, yeah, i think it is. >> and that sort can be a highly
9:15 pm
destructive instrument, is that you as we'll? >> yes. >> i've not had any sleepless nights yet, but i can feel them coming. of course it wasn't that much longer, you're only on the news of the work for another 30 months or so before you moved on. but you have caused immense power, did you come in this position, the "news of the world" and in the "daily mirror," and you would agree with that? >> i think the holder of the office of editor, yes. >> did you feel that you had sufficient judgment, the aged 28, two way up difficult issues of the private interest of individuals against the public interest, mr. morgan? >> i did my best. >> well, no doubt you did but did you have the necessary judgment to carry out that
9:16 pm
exercise, looking back on its? >> i would say that i was unusually young for a job like that, and i tend to rely on much older, much more expensive people understand who are in valuable. but certainly when i first went in i think it's fair to say that i was, i was pretty young. i was 28. >> when your editor of the "news of the world" i think you pay 250 pounds a week to have it put in the sunday mirror, is that correct? >> the paper did, yes, i believe. >> is that something you knew about? >> i was made aware of it, yes. >> i think you said it's a disgrace of course and totally unethical. would you agree with that? >> probably, yes. >> and there's one example i think which you accept occurred on altering or doctoring photographs, the daily princess, diana photographs which made them look as if they were
9:17 pm
kissing, is that right? >> yeah, it was a stupid thing to do. we didn't actually con the public because the picture was exactly the same that would be apparent the next day in a rival paper in our own building but it was a very, very silly thing to have done. and again as result of the introduction of digital photography, and a few papers came improper in that period by you misusing images like that. this is not a good idea. >> can i deal with what your attitude here is perhaps or was and still is to privacy, to go back to when piers met, four pages from the end of this
9:18 pm
interview. top right hand corner it says page two of six. the question from ms. campbell is right in the middle of the page. how do you feel about snitches? you sell private information to the papers. do you pay them? the answer yes, papers a snitches. they are disgusting little vermin. who helped to sell papers? yes. there again i agree. but just as papers by the stores it does mean the editors don't think people selling them are horrible. now and has your view of the privacy laws changed? no, because celebrities are the very last people who should be protected by privacy law. they are the ones who use the media the most to sell their privacy for money.
9:19 pm
were you referring to all celebrities that are? >> in what context of? >> well, the answer to this question which is put to you. >> i struggle to find this because these are not in order to i'm listening to you rather than reading it can be just identified tactic the paragraph you're talking about? >> yes. it's four pages from the end of this clip or she of pages. and in the top right inside you will see page two of six. or you might say to a seven apparently. it says two of six for my. it depends on how it was pretty because it's quite difficult website to print stuff off. >> i'm reading the two paragraphs, yes. i mean, my view of celebrities and privacy if that's what you're asking is, ever depends i
9:20 pm
think, i'm sure this will, as a center point to the inquiry which is how much privacy are you entitled to if you're a famous person or public figure, if you yourself use your privacy for commercial gain? you know, i have, i have very little sympathy for celebrities who sell their weddings for a million pounds. and then expect to have privacy if they're caught having having affairs, for example. it's a nonsensical position to adopt. i have a lot more sympathy with celebrities who just don't do that kind of thing. >> i think you're going a little bit further here, but it may be that you are being wound up by your interlocutor were. all celebrities are not deserving of any sympathy at all because they sell the privacy for money. do you see that? >> i think i said that very last people should be protected by privacy law.
9:21 pm
i would put the genre of celebrity last pic the reason is that actually i had the benefit of experiencing both sides of this coin, needy and the celebrity side. and the reality is there are lots of benefits of being a celebrity. many benefits that are not available to ordinary members of the public. and i consider myself extremely fortunate on a daily basis. other celebrities do not consider themselves to be fortunate, and there's a kind of attrition with the media in the sense that you wish to use the need to promote their cells and their brands, televisions and movies but they don't like it to run if it is negative. i just don't think you can have it both ways. >> imagine your attitude to the pcc, the party line which when the inquiry has received from
9:22 pm
many is that an adjudication by pcc regarded very seriously, and really a matter of shame. was that an attitude which you had at times, mr. morgan? >> yes. i think that is accurate, yes. >> we have touched on paragraph 34 of their first witness statement, but page 82 of "the insider" please. >> yeah. >> maybe we should take it up at the bottom of page 81. for lines from the bottom. this is a conversation you were having with mr. rupert murdoch. high, piers, how are you, he
9:23 pm
said cheerily. fine, thanks, boss to really enjoyed you humiliating me. instead i said i was in great shape. the paper was in great shape and while everything is in great shape it should rest in the chico. one thing i've learned is that he really doesn't want to hear you wincing so there's no point going down that road. he just wants her precisely how you intend to smash the opposition into oblivion. is that more or less correct, at least regards your state of mind, mr. morgan? >> from a business point of view, yes. >> and then what you attribute to them is i'm sorry about all that press complaining thingamajig, he said to my astonishment. is that what mr. murdoch said? >> well, that was my memory of it years later, yet. i would say it was a word for word because i don't have a recording of it.
9:24 pm
>> the thingamajig part, is, does that time with what you call in having said? >> it was my memory. the fact that he couldn't remember in that moment the exact wording, i wouldn't read too much into it. >> right, but your state of mind though, and this has continued with you, was one of astonishment, wasn't it? >> well, i mean obvious again in the background for this, the front page which i had created which got me into trouble, and for which i take full responsibility, had only come about because the page i wanted mr. murdoch had effectively suggested wouldn't be a good idea. >> so there you might not remember precise words used when didn't expect as one does remember one feeling or emotion
9:25 pm
when something is said. you said you astonishment, so that must've been your state of mind when he answered whatever he did answer, would you agree with that? >> you know, ihink he was kind of taken aback by the serious skill of the coverage of the issue. it was the first time he ever made a statement against anything of that nature. and i was getting kicked all over the place, and he knew i was very young. he knew that i was probably slightly impetuous, i had made a dumb decision that night, which i had, changing the front page at the last moment. and i think that he wanted to express a sense of understanding that, and he didn't. >> and danger diary continued, he definitely used the word sorry eric that's right, isn't it? >> i believe so, yup. >> or just have a use in the diary but you're quite categorical about his answer. >> as i say this is 1995, so i would've written this in 2005,
9:26 pm
10 years later. so it's the best my memory serves it. >> and it was clear by his failure to even remember the name of the press complaints commission that he doesn't really give a talk about it. so that's what, that was the message he left you with, wasn't it? >> well, it was my assumption of the message, me, that may not be his recollection. >> i'm not asking you for his recollection. i can ask him for his recollection when we get there. i'm asking you for yours. that was the impression he left you with, wasn't it? >> yes, that was how i saw it. >> and i was also really the culture in the "news of the world," i would suggest then, the mayor as well, people didn't give a tussle about the bbc, did they? >> no, absolutely they did it. >> they did. okay.
9:27 pm
may i cover the masses which are outside not only one, but your voice bring you back, i just want you to confirm, mr. morgan, we haven't won to others, the difficulty you will let me know, but the question i promise you are innocuous, at least they don't require you to do more than agree or disagree with what i have to put to you. how many face-to-face meetings did you have with tony blair? in 2009, the number you gave was 56, is that correct? >> that was one on one, just he and i, yeah. >> just you and him? >> yeah. >> you deal in "the insider," page 93, with -- >> sorry. just to clarify that.
9:28 pm
occasionally miss campbell might of been there too, in some of those meetings. >> and your conversations ranged far and wide, but covered matters such as the position your newspaper was printing in relation to the labour party either in opposition or in government material time, is that right? >> yes. .. >> yeah. >> is my recollection correct -- i think it is -- that you were in the cayman islands australia with mr. blair on this occasion? >> yes.
9:29 pm
>> i just want you to confirm that what is in the diary is iorrect or to the extent that i isn't as he would indicate for the case 93 from the bottom toe the 18th of july 20 blared meet the keynote speech to theblr conference delegates here today went down in absolute storm he spoke passionately of the purp lurpose,os etc. just what was wanted to hear. so far so good? >> yes. >> it was a speech delivered with great energy and dynamism and confidence. and sure all that is correct. and we found out afterwards when he grabbed me by the shoulder right shrieked that was a great speech. he supplied the jfk. i'm sure that with that, isn't it? do not make light of the loving
9:30 pm
going on during the speech. i suspect they were making love like to porcupines very, very carefully. is that sad? >> yes, those are all the lines. >> they didn't seem anything lee from where i was sitting. he seemed elated when i had a quick word outside. it's very important to come here and get the message of prayer that the new labour is not going to strangle businesses like news corp. we believe in a vibrant free press and a commercial enterprise. i'm sure words to that effect are probably set as well, weren't they? he's a very bright young man and made it great speech, didn't he come he raved. i'm going to back and then again i ask. too late to say, but i could see people needed a breath of fresh air. is that what mr. murdoch said? >> my recollection, yes.
9:31 pm
>> we know that mr. murdoch did back mr. player before 1997, didn't he? >> yes, he did. >> thank you very much, mr. moore again. there may be further questions, but those i have to ask of you. >> okay, thank you. >> i'd like to ask mr. morgan about stephen not. i don't know whether you recall that. >> yes, i do. >> mr. moore again, you said in your book and you confirmed in your evidence to the inquiry earlier that the first you ever heard of the practice of phone hacking was on the 26th of january, 2001. is that correct? >> yes,.
9:32 pm
>> any still maintain that, don't you? >> yes. >> you were the editor of the daily mirror in august 1998, where you? >> yes. >> in your member no doubt been a black man who is one of your editors come is that correct? >> yes, she was a reporter actually. >> she was actually special projects editor 1998, was that she? >> i don't know. she may have been. >> were you aware that she was contact by someone by a major news story about how mobile telephones could be hacked? >> no. >> the story came from someone called stephen north, and a driver at a fairly memorable story, isn't it? >> i don't remember. >> mr. northgate evidence here,
9:33 pm
evidence not challenge that ms. blackman when he telephoned her was very excited about this story and one of the biggest headlines that decade. do not recall that? >> the death of the princess of a major event found that incredibly hard to blame. i studied this man's website since then and he seems me one short of impending. >> so you're aware of your evidence, mr. morgan? a story such as this you would have did to bring to you, wouldn't you? >> the idea is the biggest news story of the decade. that's complete nonsense. >> and having heard the evidence will know that he said after chasing this but are in for days
9:34 pm
and days, finally 12 days later she came back and said the newspaper wasn't interested in the story at all. >> well, it happens every hour of every day in the daily newspaper. we offer thousands of stories like this. i have nothing to do then. >> or can you say, mr. moore again. but he restrained because mobile telephones could be hacked in precisely the way that he said they could. >> that's true. >> so he wasn't really parking, was the? >> that was just testimony. i would say parking, yeah. >> when mr. north complained that the mirror had spent 12 days checking out his story and then decided that despite the fact that this part this works, they weren't actually going to publish anything, he was very
9:35 pm
concerned, wasn't he? you were going to use it as a nearer to the persons obtaining stories about one of people. do you remember he gave that evidence? >> i just think how nicely nothing about it would never get his story. it never got suppressed for the reasons he's trying to insinuate. >> if it's such a nonsense and nonstory, why was he sent a check for 100 pounds out of the blue in september of that year? >> lots of people would be paid for offering stories that don't be used. it happens all the time. nothing usual whatsoever. >> have you seen the description for which he was paid, mr. morgan? >> no come i've never seen a check. 100 pounds for the biggest story
9:36 pm
of the decade sounds pretty cheap to me. >> the stir is entitled phone scandal. >> rate. >> the story never. but then he paid him 100 pounds without them even asking for it several weeks later. >> and your point? >> i asked the questions, mr. morgan. were you aware of the payment at the time? >> no. >> were you aware of the story at the time? >> no. >> even though it was bred to one of your editors? >> as i said, thousands of stories about to be attached my journalists on a weekly basis because i think we offer over two dozen stories a day and published about 120. >> stories about a mobile phone scandal that we know has now caused such an outrage that it has led to the inquiry.
9:37 pm
>> you are massively self inflating the importance of this particular character in a somber psychotically excessive campaign to make people think people. have no idea what he seen in his website and testimony. absolutely nothing to do with him. they got published in my local newspaper at a later date, but i don't know for a fact that what seems to have happened. >> the point is, mr. morgan, that no one, not the tabloids want to publish which the story because they didn't want to reveal the practice they were using for the purposes of obtaining stories about precisely the celebrities and well-known people they wanted to sell their newspapers face. that's correct, isn't it? >> i think it's total nonsense.
9:38 pm
>> last question, mr. morgan. when you see found on the 26th of january, two dozen one about the process of phone hacking, it was mr. nonstory that gave rise to that knowledge, wasn't it? that's how you knew about phone hacking. >> absolute nonsense. >> no further questions. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. morgan. would you please think those who facilitated the possibility of your evidence on a video link and all the people who have done the work at your end. >> am i allowed to say one final thing? >> it depends about what you want to speak. >> this becomes some less like a lock start having an album coming out. i do feel still very proud of a lot of the very good step that those the news of the world did and it does slightly concerned
9:39 pm
me. a lot of it is very, very useful, but i do think there has to be a better balance here. a lot of the very good things that the newspapers were doing during those periods and continues to do or not being at all. >> if you follow the choir eight carefully, mr. morgan, you will find i said several times not nearly that much about the tabloids in the newspaper industry guys is splendid and utterly to be applauded. but i have also emphasized the need for that balance. i hope you see that part of the inquiry's final. i'm very conscious of that said many times that the enormously important work that all newspapers do, which is why i've always made it very clear that
9:40 pm
the critical importance of freedom of expression and freedom of the press is to be preserved. >> yeah, i appreciate that. i think the industry guys, too. >> thank you very much. thank you two of those have made this possible. >> it was obviously sensible that we conclude that
9:41 pm
>> have you tried the three c-span radio at? >> fast, easy-to-use, and visually appealing, and the audio quality is convincingly clear. great application and great deal considering it is free. awesome application that took me about ten seconds to learn and use. >> anytime anywhere get streaming audio of c-span radio as well as of three television
9:42 pm
networks including live coverage of congress and you can listen to our interview programs including q&a, newsmakers, the communicators, and afterwards. c-span, available wherever you are. find out more at / radio app. >> north korean leader kim jong-il died on saturday at the age of 69. he was the country's second ruler. at this event in washington, analysts looked at the future of north korea and the transfer power to his son, kim jong-un. this is one hour and 20 minutes. >> ladies into a woman, i want to welcome you to this afternoon's program. today's program is the korean economic institute caesar for -- center for strategic studies and the council on foreign relations and i want to thank all of our
9:43 pm
partners for working so quickly to put together this forum. we are very honored to partner with our friends here and talk about the very timely, timely and relevant issue of the korean peninsula after the death of kim jong-il. my name is abraham kim, and i and the vice-president of the korean economic institute, and i will be the moderate today. with the death of kim jong-il it is noises ration that this is a romance went and a time of great uncertainty, not only in north korea, but for the entire region . all of us, and short, have many questions. it will kim jong-un successfully consolidate power over the regime? should we expect a instability and violence in the coming months and years as an experienced leader tries to launch a power? will this new regime the more
9:44 pm
hard-line? what does this all mean for south korea, china, japan, and the united states? we have the leading korean experts to help address some of these courses and more today. from our far left year is scott snyder. the council on foreign relations . victor cha, a professor of drawers and university. of course, jack pritchard, the president of the trade economic institute. this format will be moderated issue, something recall into a spell at interviewing. unfortunately i am not as stylish as oprah, and i hope to make our guest right during the interview, but no budget ticket of a couple of questions for our
9:45 pm
panelists to address some of these important questions. and then we will open up the microphones all of you and have a couple of room and microphones in the audience. we would get questions from you to ask our panelists today. with that of going to kagan of. scott, victor, and jack. one of the biggest concerns about the death of kim jong-il, of course, the young age of his in his son, kim jong-un, and the short transition. what is your sense for this process? will we see a smooth transition, are you concerned that the next generation's leaders will unravel? , we start with you, jack. >> well, let me first start off by saying, some of the estimates that some may have been saying and others before the death was that if kim jong-il were able to survive some few more years the
9:46 pm
probability of a successful transition would go up, not high, but it would go up. that didn't occur. with the death of kim jong-il and stick by my original estimate, and that is, there is a low probability at the ten will survive over time as the leader of ron correa. the process, at the goal we're going to see is relatively calmed united north korea, are rallying around the flagpole, if you will, and then shortly thereafter, whether that is one month but two months, not sure, we will begin to feel to have remained nazi, but feel the maneuvering behind the scenes between the military, between the korean workers' party with the brother-in-law of kim jong-il to see just to is going to have the most influence. right death rate is heavily
9:47 pm
weighted toward the military command that in some believe overtime that they will become the dominant force, either at the forefront are solidly behind pulling the strings of the face of north korea, a chubby 28 year-old. >> i don't disagree at all. i think that, you know, before this past weekend every person in this room, would be the most likely scenario for this regime unraveling i think 99 out of 100 would have said unexpected and sudden death of kim jong-il. that is what we have today. if so i think things still look very good. i think it could take some time. there will be at time of cholera
9:48 pm
as the country unifies and separates. but after that we just don't know what is in store. we have to remember that clearly we all heard a plan for succession, it really started in haste after we spoke with kim jong-il in 2008, and the plateau is is it's silly to promote the san paolo, surround him with the regents and others and then effectively allow for at least a decade for this process to happen. kim jong-il, when he was being groomed for the party's leader he was groomed for addictive than half. that was the plan. it has clearly all been turned up in the air by the fact that their leader is now dead.
9:49 pm
so these sorts of regimes, i don't think, are known to be very flexible. they're quite brittle. you have the curve balls thrown at the regime. this is not. this is the big one. this is the but the biggest one that there is. the nature of that is just not able to be excepted and crack. they keep bending and crack. and so i will also be watching very carefully for the size we will see in coming weeks and months about, you know, whether there will be able to carry this out in anything resembling. >> of but you, scott? are you this pessimistic? >> i have also expressed the view that in the absence of kim jong-il we don't know if this plan will stick.
9:50 pm
the maybe a high probability that it might not. but i also think it is worth exploring the contrarian view a little bit. north korea is a dynastic system. and so to our view it does not make sense. this source year-old to be successful as a leader. the collective system and viewers. if kim jong-un does not succeed it might be the start of a different family, and i'm not saying that there should not be challenger will be challenged, but i think that at this stage the plant, at least was partially unfolded and the question is why not we can see deviations in the of attention of the plan. i think there will be external conflicts fellows show.
9:51 pm
including the question of whether not the regime feels it is to reach out to in the economic sustenance necessary to make it through the transition. >> of palaestra will bid perry let's assume he maintains cell level of control. so question whether he is more reform-minded than his father and maybe a will to carry out things that his father may have not done during his lifetime. and then there are rows to the key is sadistic and very unpredictable. what is your sense of kim jong-un, leader? >> since i don't know, i'd think we are really don't know. we know as much about kim jong-un as we did and what kim
9:52 pm
jong-il when he took power. i'm going to call -- fall back. in that the that the question temperamentally, the elites recognize the dangers of economic reform to the regime and their own survival. but at the same time they have a need for cash in order to be able to sustain their survival. i think the big challenge is whether and up the system is sustainable under cert of tenses where there is a need for cash and there are external factures of cash there will be available in order to sustain those. >> victor, you have mentioned that there are certain fines that you are going to be looking for in terms of weathered the regime is going to be unraveling or it boo will be sustainable
9:53 pm
over the long run. what are some of the things you will be looking for the next couple of months or maybe years has been urging the senate will not. >> our question to answer. we will certainly be looking for a lot of what you will have with regard to affirmation of the austria. the look at any formal gatherings them may have meant changes or ships and positions of people. also looking at any car accidents enough area with regard to senior officials. it's one of those things are we're all going to be scrambling for operation and try to take a list of the and it is for mitt something with regard to how the transition is going. i we are going to see a piece of evidence that is sort of the
9:54 pm
smoking gun? power will not. but i think collectively you reach apply where there is enough -- if there are of signals coming out that we have reason to pinpoint we will know that will we see that. i think one of the challenges of trying to decipher information and get the information we hear coming out of rough kerria indicate any sort of changed whether it is on the nuclear issue with the food situation with this transition is weak it a bit of evidence, have no idea of knowing whether this is, you know, this is the smoke or fire or whether it is the spoke after the fire in this sense the real change has already happened. this is what we are trying to figure out. it is pretty clear it is based on the past 48-74 hours that we
9:55 pm
really don't have a good sense that all about what is happening inside the country. so there will be a lot. >> , but you? you have been in the intelligence community as well as had a military career. >> well, let me -- i guess the first thing -- well, not the first thing, but one of the things you want to stick a look at here is a we're talking about is a breakdown of control of the region's ability to direct itself with a unified voice. one of the things that will be critical and may not come first is the breakdown of social order. if we see because of harsh winter conditions, less electricity, and discontent within the population that we have not yet seen a different levels, you know, i am of suggesting that there is a spring.
9:56 pm
nothing that will be difficult but there are, as we have periodically in the past, some indication of discontent in localized areas. if that becomes more widespread and there is utter lack of control or a crackdown on that, it would be an indication that certainly there would be smoke. one of the of the things that i see, kind of dumping in on the question that you asked scott in terms of reform calamine did this were the ability more opportunity to exist out there as to what creative certainly would be looking for, economic assistance. and from my point of view if you take a look at this call of the things that we want from north korea are military related. we have human rights and concerns the tragic u.n., and they will come about, but our priorities as we take a look get their nuclear program, our
9:57 pm
concerns about proliferation suggest that what we want to extract from north korea has to deal with them giving up some military control. in this case their nuclear weapons program. this is a zero sum game. my suggestion is that kim jong-un is not the president of the u.s. it's a generic pawlenty if. he does not command. he is the behind-the-scenes guided and directed and as i would suggest for the near term that is going to be done predominantly by the military. to suggest he should be associated with economic reform in which they may have to give up things that are valuable to a military, they said they ultimately believe are necessary
9:58 pm
for low long-term survival of the regime and certainly critical for the short-term survival, i felt the it's going to happen. doesn't mean we ought not to try and do things, but i don't believe it will occur. >> the challenge, is he has to take control call was yes to fund a new ideology if he will be running the country. it can be the same. at the same time he is going to have to show that what his rule does is reinforce the sense of state. in that sense he will pull from his father's legacy. let's face it. that is defined by this new capability in addition to all of the ideology and everything else to talk about in terms of the
9:59 pm
military strength of the country . this does not mean that you will not be interested in things that are in cash and hard currency for the regime, but i don't think that will be acquired through some sort of wholesale reform. it will be required to cover required to the same means. the furthest end of this in terms of getting to something more progressive is some sort of wholesale change. then move in that direction of excepting mr. gee's a bargain that was in place on the table. come back to 1994. it's very hard to see someone who is so yo who had been arrests into a position like this and the will to make that sort of change. even if it is a collective,
10:00 pm
still, a very difficult situation. we have to remember that this leader, you heard me say this before, this was a time where they are defining events in international relations have been tin and square, the execution, the end of the soviet union and the arabs bring. there is nothing comforting of the house of world when interacting with the outside world for this generation of leaders, both the enter generation as well as the up-and-coming one. you know, for them it is very difficult to get out of, and unless you have a truly charismatic leader, it is utterly easy to expects change jenner's seems like this. i don't see him.
10:01 pm
>> let me say one thing about the relationship with the military because of this is a critic of from one that deserves more careful examination. while we have seen so far in complete transition is that all the positions are really taking apart. he is not engaged with the court . and so it does raise the very interesting questions of the launchers relationship with his advisers. it raises the possibility of a kind of shift to more party oriented base, although admittedly the lines blur in institutional terms but in party and military when you're trying to understand how things work in north korea, but in terms of a potential fever pitch that is
10:02 pm
clew visible to the outside to my big the relationship is one that up with pay close attention to. >> let me pick up there. we were in pyongyang, and it was just as we were watching the aftermath of the party congress, and things are going on. i had an opportunity, discussing this with the ambassador kamal one of their six party talk initiators contest, about what has served as the revitalization of the korean workers' party and he said, no, there's their revitalization. this is always been strong. clearly that is up the case kind of this suggests to me is that kim jong-il shortly after his stroke could figure out that his son as its 28-year-old is that freud to don a four-star uniform and command the respect of the military. he was looking for way to
10:03 pm
rebalance power, and he had begun by trying to reemphasize the role that his father had of the korean workers' party. so the area that, as victor suggests, that of its zillow common with a new slogan : is from oil was going to go over well. there. [laughter] polk, for i open up to mike to our audience, a lot to ask you a little bit of the regional perspective was changes occurring in north korea. let's start with you. what is your sense of how china is ceiling with the change of leaders in our feria. deasy it then changing? >> i have indicated that my main metric will looking at possible sustainability of the current system and the victory of is
10:04 pm
basically follow the money. as china is the obvious political player as it relates to the possibility of kind of providing north korea with the economic stability necessary to get through in the near term discipline. and so we have already seen a very strong show support from china. reno that he paid his respects at the austrian embassy in beijing. one can imagine that china may be concerned enough to be reaching out in other ways to provide economic support. i am very much struck by the openness of balance in chinese analyst commentary about the sustainability of of three of. so that tells me that the chinese government must be very aware of the concern about
10:05 pm
sustainability. and i believed that the national response with this government in china, given its focus on the regional stability, is doing to be to try to do what it can in order to provide near-term support for sustaining growth. until there is a stable transition if that is possible. >> hello but japan to make japan is dealing with quite a bit of trepidation. how do you think the japanese government should approach the change? >> first, i would agree as we all know is an existential threat. a threat to a japanese national security. in that sense i think they're
10:06 pm
following the situation very closely. the government has already made a statement on this about the death of the north korean leader . it opens the question as to what they can do beyond that. the japanese foreign ministry. provided a good opportunity for the u.s. and ministration and the japanese to make a strong sign and alliance in the event of any service chains that happens. the issue is clear. very concerned about the objections. at the same time they have potentially a great deal of
10:07 pm
things off for a return, the coordinated attacks or economic development of that is on hold. the government of japan will monitor the situation closely and look for openings i doubt that there will be allowed to find any of these. the primary role was supposed to happen this week and that will be put on hold for les the foreseeable future. stay closely tie with the netting states.
10:08 pm
to try to maintain. china even though they don't know very much about what is going on, this all no more than we do. >> of what the united states. had you think the u.s. government should approach? >> i think there is a two pronged approach that the u.s. ought to be thinking about. if we believe that there is a high probability that kim jong-un will not succeed, that there is some beginning of collapse and the web put this is the death of kim jong-il is the beginning of the in the north. aren't if you believe that was our first priorities is to think the consequences, which should we be preparing for in the eventuality, whether it comes quickly or it is dragged out
10:09 pm
over several months, a couple years, whenever that may be. one of the things that we are not yet up to speed on is our contingency planning, particularly with regard to china. china is going to play a significant role in the survival or demise of mockery of, and we want to ensure that we aren't a relatively same pace of music, if you will when that occurs. we're not at cross purposes. that is going to be very difficult to. the chinese will be very reluctant to engage. will we do behind the scenes will be critical in that regard. the second part of that is used a letter delivered to your door with. they are may not be stable. bin obligations to find those.
10:10 pm
it's interesting monday the day of the announcements of cream human rights. there is an area here where the new image to mothers going to be a new image, but doe panel of osama we have begun the process of reevaluating an opening our search for remains that involves a dialogue and a level of cooperation. i think that we need to increase that and put as much effort as possible as getting uniform
10:11 pm
personnel on the ground. whatever limited capacity will help both our intelligence or understanding and low-level and not significant dialogue with the north korean military. we also have as a jew was alluding to the potential new term nutritional assistance, it used to be food aid. now it's going to come in the form of baby bottles, which no military officer will be seen drinking from. nonetheless, it's an area and rich it's going to be difficult. this going to be leakage of the potential for the opening of bringing back the i a inspectors and the degree of food assistance. however much we would deny it, i think there is some linkage to read it will be difficult to get back into that area. there are a couple of variously to try to pursue.
10:12 pm
see if we pull the string and how far it goes. i am not optimistic that we will get very far, we certainly have an obligation to explore all of those options and any more that we can think of. >> i agree with everything that was just said. i'll just add that this transitional time friend could be an average into this to try to create new decisions for a career as it grapples with its several the. persisted because north korea will feel more and more. it may be a point where they are more willing to make some kind of trade-off. the hard part is giving in to keep if we saw the agreement in 1991 which was also a critical point or north korea was the survival. >> i partially agree with that. certainly when you have to file
10:13 pm
when you deal with the system, you should welcome the opportunity to change. it clearly is in buried on the other hand i think it is love for the united states. if you create these decisions, the decision points. but in order for the north to take them you must have some sort of context. and i just don't know. and i believe this is the u.s. position. a just don't know if it is an opportune time to try to make any sort of contract with anyone inside. the new leader. you undermine if you're the as states. contact the people outside, in which case you definitely be undermined. the gray successor. so i think, you know, i described all kind of looking in
10:14 pm
figuring out how things will happen. yet no idea what it will be and no idea the counter reaction. the south korean brother. the ideal thing is it that we should coordinate. you should all coordinate. as an academic, a agree that is a residue. real world policies that are truly impossible. >> please send speak from experience. [laughter] let me pick up my little bit on that, and that is, wherever we do that is over and open and whenever we tried to take a advantage of, exploit and create new decision points, for me is very clear that the underlying message, and it may be willing to leave private to the north korean is there is only one
10:15 pm
path. we're going to make it is easy for you to choose, but there are no other raw long-term options that the did you keeping your in nuclear-weapons, to you having it type of regime that is so despicable tons. that is the messes that will be difficult to be reinforced, as victor has indicated, in a consistent way among all parties involved. we have to do it best. basically please raise your hand. we have two running mike's. we have marie.
10:16 pm
please ask the questions. >> thanks for a fascinating address. i like says the panel was to be this or run of the decision point should we send someone, shall we send condolences to, sure concern. the secretary of state has already issued. it talks about our concern for the north korean people and the potential for our upton is down the road. as best it is going to be, and
10:17 pm
it will be seen or however the north koreans want, what a measure of condolence for the people. i think that you know well the rule of thumb on this, the u.s. government, state departments. always easy to talk to them. to say the same people and you're sorry for the north korean people, and that is basically the formula. miners in the is that the market so that going to invite any foreigners to the funeral, so that basically precludes mckeon decision. i don't think -- personally i don't think it is again idea for the u.s. government's to issue official and formal condolences about the death of the leader. that is not appropriate, but i'd think they have it just about right.
10:18 pm
very conscious to of cautious. very much wait and watch and see . that's about all they can do. >> such as want to say one thing on this. there is the prior experience and west of the u.s. government had assured condolences. you know, it is it, the is the the the is a risk at this point that will compare with the u.s. government it. the circumstances are completely different. it justifies to fall short of that, but the same time i do think it's possible the of iran's could see what they have a gun as a step short of where there were previously. >> this show first.
10:19 pm
my question build some of the ambassador said on the strategic planning. i have a recollection of those very happy to -- hard to get a chance to talk above contingencies. during that same time the u.s. military has their plans for montana and north korea and previous progressive governments also fairly allergic.
10:20 pm
>> on what basis does kim jong-un have any leverage to push back? i'm interested enjoy your lap. the dominant role. what is the implication of that the are not moving ahead of former. recesses where you're pointing out, justice elena for military first row to sunland and as i call military second, but a different formulation.
10:21 pm
how late and involve from what was there a fourth is something else jack you know, the critical constituencies, i think we have to recognize that. that is going to be the reality, the leader having to deal of constituencies that make it more . the bigger back to that conversation that we have with china. and this is not something that the u.s. threat has taken part in digging about him but you have your purse the chinese in a very slow process. that is not want to say we know
10:22 pm
their guard to fail. let's start with the military contingency plan. today's them on the other way, if there were to succeed have led to this. you have to earn the trust in terms of when those, when the smoke that has been talked drop appears you begin to have as gentle the conversation that will lead to a more serious conversation with the chinese are they cannot dispute with this may be headed. that's easier said than done. this is in the eastern merely difficult proposition. but you cannot get around the basic fact that the chinese are going to hold the driver's seat for survival and demise of north korea.
10:23 pm
i don't believe in the military can govern over a significant amount of time a civil society. by the north korean military is exerting more and more of over control and business and social life it will become the ripping part of north korea, the lines. says the implication of my point. >> thomas and the bush administration planning for some sort of contingency in north korea. at that point, they did not want to have what they thought would be a regime change in their own mind. and after the stroke of kim
10:24 pm
jong-il in 2008i think the u.s. both that official and unofficial levels , the questions, track one and two, tried to dialogue. i think even governments on their own with the chinese on these sorts of questions. as i have limited. now, is very clear that when they read in the design not successful for the chinese. they have saloon no intense and seen the discussion with the south koreans as positive as they. this is not. i think that the interesting question, with the studies would do with the looting days of this to say sudden-death.
10:25 pm
the wedding days the men say things like, well, how would you deal with an environmental disaster? or suppose there were a nuclear accident, and that would be the avenue that would try to pursue. i think the interesting question now is given what has happened, maybe not at the official level, maybe an unofficial level. and here i think i agree one which traverses this to talk about how people would react and the things that the chinese a comfortable with. the other way it is also to basically go when and have all the parties because the bill when tried said -- no is
10:26 pm
difficult to wall would have a conversation about what we all fear because our biggest enemy among the three countries is something like this, our biggest is the what is happening. this calculation among the parties. responses mope. that is helping. tried to give a degree of transparency, and this is what might motivate each country as a respondent tried to invest perceivable our ability. i think that is the really important first step. again, it's very difficult to do , but maybe it is easier to do that now unofficial level. >> and there are areas, i think,
10:27 pm
you mentioned that involve moments of cooperation, especially the humanitarian aspect. so it may be possible to start with those kinds of exceptions. you know, i experienced listening to chinese on this issue, there are little more forthcoming in that area. you know, it is interesting. i tried to write a scenario for this type of discussion with the chinese a onetime. it began when kim jong-il was dead. at that time it was shocking, but now it is reality. it is definitely worth a feet having an effort to try to get the response to reality, rather than a hypothetical.
10:28 pm
>> larry, and the gentleman in the -- >> csi yes. question about the older son of kim jong-il who most of you know has been in exile in china specifically. and the less oblivious he is given a couple of interviews said japanese press. a couple of other provocations in which he is so with the number three in context some very politically incorrect things about the north korean system and even about his father's policies. what reading might there be on the question of whether he will be allowed into the country for
10:29 pm
the funeral on december the tour's ninth or whether he will be kept out selective he is allowed back in the country what happens to him then afterwards. also, and examining chinese policies did we or do we have a pretty good reading about the chinese government's relationship with the bataan, how close it is and whether it is a distant and whether there might be the potential for a kind of chinese candidacy for
10:30 pm
this hill this son should the scenario .. what over the collective decision making the process is going to be to allow him back in for the funeral.
10:31 pm
there is a sense of solidarity. we all know as you diluted to there have been suggestions that kim john il has attempted to eliminate his older brother, things like that. what you are getting at is it comes back and will they let him leave, will the incarcerate him, will they eliminate him as a future threat and i would suggest not. he would come, go to the funeral and the exiled and never seen again in north korea. that is the best that can happen. i wouldn't think the north koreans would be following him with a poisoned umbrella tip. it doesn't help them in the near-term. >> i don't know what's going to happen but it's going to be a great opportunity to observe because who will be at the funeral?
10:32 pm
will all three sons be at the funeral? what about the daughter? there's rumors that she is sick also. it will be interesting to watch and see what happens because again we've had so little opportunity to view these. i would imagine while they are not going to let the press in they probably are going to really specter's so it will be an interesting opportunity to see what we will all make our own theory about the politics but as a scholar and analyst is going to be a great opportunity to try to understand how things are operating within the north and it takes an extraordinary event like this in order for us to get a glimpse but i think we will have a good glimpse of what is happening. china's interest in north korea, roberts question, i think we do
10:33 pm
face a court alumni here because on the one hand, it's the chinese i think are naturally in drained to try to want to support the status quo rather than try to address fundamental change and put off any question of fundamental change as well as kim john il looked like he was stable and securely in power. and naturally inclined to the decision making process even in the face of nuclear tests and other things to sort of support the status quo. this is a completely different situation and chinese support of safe but secure kim john il regime is different from china having to underwrite a system that is in transition with the leader and presumably would require a much bigger commitment from china and i think we've already seen this in their being
10:34 pm
the first statement and even in those statements to offer to be open to an early visit by the new leader of north korea. so they are at least they look right now they they are going to underwrite this thing and then the question becomes one with a this is the right thing for china to do the strategic liability versus trying to hold off to this declining strategic asset. but the other will be if they decide to hold off on this decline for how long because there are going to be much higher costs involved in the relationship with north korea under kim jong un then there was under kim john il. the third piece of this as wrote in "the new york times" this morning this is going to be in many ways the first major foreign policy decision of the new chinese leadership. and so, from the perspective of
10:35 pm
the new chinese leadership, do they want this to be their first major policy decision, to basically say remember the albatross around our neck that the previous chinese leadership had? well we turned that into a much bigger albatrosses and we are going to restore it around their neck. so take that. it's we to be interesting to see how they respond to that. >> i think it's very hard to get attraction on the chinese government relationship with kim jong un. in many respects it sometimes seems he has greater freedom of speech than many well-known chinese dissidents so that's a very interesting and perplexing i think circumstance. you know, the real question is does china have the means or designer to be the maker in north korea and if so, how would they go about doing it? for think that as victor has suggested the top chinese
10:36 pm
leadership is quite traverse and i think it is likely that to the concerns about low back of any efforts to try to choose a leader will prevent them from doing it. instead they actually hold the key to success. the leader is going to have to come to china to get the resources necessary to be able to survive. so in that respect i don't think that china can be ki maker but i think that they can enable the success of anybody that they see as a likely winner in the leadership contest. >> i've got professor kim and then we've got shadow who is monitoring twitter and we are live streaming this program today and there's probably a couple dozen people watching on line and they've submitted some questions so we will go to chad afterwards.
10:37 pm
>> just one question. we've kind of been doing things from the top down. as we know the arabs bring started from the bottom-up. in north korea the currency field and we saw the grievances. the north koreans minds are being opened through the cultural products, through the intermediation been delivered through the south korean movies and you are aware that there is wide viewing of this. what do you think the likelihood of all of something coming up to these groups? >> chad, real quick. >> we have a question from the exchange. this will be from you, jack. >> can we expect a military incident in the coming months? thanks. >> let me take the second one first. we've seen a lot of analysts in the last couple of days talk about their concerns of provocations that there's a high
10:38 pm
probability. this is where i differ. there is a lower probability that as they talk about and why would this occur to furnish the credentials of kim jong un as the 28 year four-star can command the respect of the military. that attempt by and large was done in 2010, and of astana the cost in the relationship with china. it caused them to make decisions where they were strategic or not at the time they're chinese concern about the fragility of the regime caused them to publicly back the north koreans and there was cost involved. the cost in their own relationship with south korea. to the contrary, i think that a provocation at this point would damage the potential for china to be a larger scale back her at a critical point in time.
10:39 pm
it would undermine what would be seen as overall control. so from my point of view i think there's a lower probability. it's not zero but it is extraordinarily low. certainly in the next several months, if not a year. so i'm not concerned about that. and let me just throw in one thing on the arab spring. one of the things for me in looking at other bottom-up revolutions as they have occurred is the speed of the transfer of information. the ability to go from writer to facebook that doesn't exist in north korea. so however scenario or model you want to create, i don't think there is the wherewithal for that kind of movement to happen in the speed its required. >> on the air of -- arab spring
10:40 pm
come all revolutions never look the same. they all look different. and while it is difficult to imagine the north korean people suddenly rising up and marching around the gates of the kim il sung mausoleum we just don't imagine that happening. having said that, i mean, one of the things we have to remember that kim john il left in terms of his legacy in north korea in addition to nuclear weapons was ironically he left markets in north korea because if he had not failed so miserably economically such that the government had to close the ration system, they never would have discovered markets like the discovered them today. and that's been a process that's been in place now for nearly 20 years. and so we know there is a market mentality in north korea.
10:41 pm
there is an independence in mind in the north korean society that arguably did not exist when kim il sung died in 1984. so we know that that's there. we don't know how it's kling to manifest itself in terms of independence in mind, but it's there. at the same time, you have this leadership problem in the north. so, how this will all play out we don't know. like the arab spurring we have no idea how these things will play out. but i would just point out that after the arab spring and every analyst we could find said we knew this was going to happen. [laughter] indicators were there for years. twitter, high unemployment, at the same time rapid economic growth, total signs for the revolution. so, if and when something happens in north korea we all look back at that and say we knew this was going to happen. broken economy, starving country, untested leaders,
10:42 pm
sudden death of kim john il. so i don't think you can say the arabs during will replicate itself in north korea. but every revolution is different, and you have -- i think you have variables here. the elite and that the mass level we've never had before in confluence. and so, i would say never say never. >> i agree that while the bottom-up changes are exciting to look at, it is hard to make an argument that they are consequential at this stage. and so - focusing not so much on the middle east but on myanmar as an example of the top down shift. in that case led by former military who realized it was falling behind. the problem with this and north korea is the military is
10:43 pm
probably the most isolated among the north korean eletes, and yet if you look at the bottom of putting we are ten or 15 years away in north korea whereas top down there is no way of predicting it but it is potentially possible for it to occur at any moment. >> doctor and then the gentleman that there. >> [inaudible] with the united states and korea or other countries can do is basically wait and see. but whether it's the bottom-up revolution or some kind of collapse that north koreans resume, what is china going to do, and will there be any
10:44 pm
reunification and what can the korean government do to prepare and the united states? >> bernard gordon, university hampshire. i want to follow up where scott was just beginning to go in terms of burma. the speculation -- stat can you hold the microphone closer. >> is that okay? in connection with burma. it seems to me that this is from pyongyang's viewpoint the changes in burma are not a good development. particularly with scott and victor and jack as well. you sense that the changes in burma are potentially better relationship with the united states. is that likely to become a drag of any significance to north
10:45 pm
korea? i gather that it has been burma north korea have been useful in terms of money transactions and other things. is there some opening potentially to maybe see some better prospects? >> i will just try to answer that really quickly. i think opening up to burma is bad news for north korea but primarily because secretary clinton explicitly targeted the dprk burma military relationship, which i think is one of -- burma has been one of north korea's better customers in recent years, and so there's a direct financial loss that north korea may face as a result of the shift. and so that, i think, is the immediate cost associated with that relationship. whether or not it has broader
10:46 pm
implications i think especially in the context of the last couple of days will look at it harder to make a judgment. >> on burma, the only thing i would add is that -- i mean, i would agree with that assessment that the interesting thing is if you look at at least from the u.s. perspective of what is happened with burma in terms of u.s. targeted counter proliferation policy on north korea the united states over the past years has been relatively successful in persuading many of the purchasers of the north korean hardware. burma been the least encased of course with iraq, libya, these are other cases. maybe not so successful with iran but certainly with the other cases quite successful.
10:47 pm
>> of the question of unification and south korea, and it is interesting that the discussion that has happened today in the last 24 hours there is a lot of talk about dprk and a lot of talk about the united states and about china and not so much of what south korea if this is probably the most important event the south koreans have seen nearly since the war. and here i think it's very challenging because of the one hand, many south koreans have this tremendous opportunity at this moment, yet at the same time there is this realization that this is part of a larger international picture. it is difficult and it's not advisable for them to act on its own even though it is their viewpoint and it is important to coordinate particularly with the united states and china in terms of moving forward.
10:48 pm
i think that requires a great deal of discipline on the part of the current south korean government. i get the sense of that veteran south korean government is being fairly discipline on this and has taken very measured steps. even though they are small things no one is going to be sort of offensive about this. this decision not to light the christmas tree in dmz, the statements of condolences, i think these are all showing a great measure and careful tone on the part of the south korean government. but there is no denying that this is a hugely important event for self koreans, and i think as this plays out over the weeks and months, it is going to get bigger and bigger.
10:49 pm
>> let's take one more year. >> you've covered the question i wanted to ask as a career in person -- korea person the first thing that came to mind, the new of the passing of kim john il is this for unification and the possibility in my lifetime, and if so, or actually is it still a possibility or is it just wishful thinking for some people don't wish for it yet? what is it that we want from the south korean point of view, from the american point of view, the chinese --
10:50 pm
>> society of washington d.c.. doctor, you mentioned china underwriting and the market's earlier. so i was just wondering what happens to the north korean economy going forward, what happens with the special economic zones, what happens going forward under the new leadership? thank you. >> on that question i think in part it depends on north korean partners and south korea. will the current, or the future government continue to hold open the communities and other projects for the next north korean leadership and then whether the next leadership is going to accept that opportunity. going back to the earlier discussion it is again harder for me to imagine any new leadership in north korea will have to make money and the
10:51 pm
question is how are they going to do that? the hope is they will do it for some sort of reform such as we saw in vietnam or china which means giving up a degree of the political control. that is the hope. the likelihood of least in my own personal opinion is they will rely on tried and true trusted means of getting money which minimizes the possibility for losing political control which make them still attractive projects. so, every time we see efforts of some sort of economic interaction of always skeptical to sort of jump on the bandwagon and say they've seen the light. they are ready to reform. it's really a case of trying to accumulate hard currency and minimizing the risks on the political side. on the question on the professor's question and the unification, it is a hard one to
10:52 pm
answer. in many ways i don't think it is a question of whether the koreans want it or don't want to read if it happens it is going to fall into their lap whether they like it or not. and i think that in that sense, comparing fri to today i would say we are definitely closer to the unification than we were last friday. now, we can't put probabilities on that. we don't know when or the time frame or anything like that. but i mean, the sudden death of the north korean leader it's hard to imagine that we are not closer than we were before. >> if i can pick up on the questions of north korean economy goes and on just a couple things. you know, you can think through a scenario that suggests that initially the north koreans are going to welcome an infusion of
10:53 pm
chinese activities. the theremin to me that initially. but at some point, the tension in the relationship that has always existed is going to emerge and somebody is going to start making judgments in terms of do we really want this much chinese. is there another way? and i am not predicting this, but you could suggest that as an example of a sudden there's a suggestion by of the north koreans an apology for the death of the tourist and some other opening that welcomes the south koreans back in. under those circumstances would the south koreans come back and knowing that if not, all these assets that have not been confiscated will in fact flow to the chinese. so, there's some opportunity there but we are talking margins
10:54 pm
i think. >> the leedy in the back over there. >> next year is supposed to be the year that the north korean regime fulfills its promise of reaching a mighty and prosperous nation. as a young leader but nevertheless a great-grandson of a great leader, how would you manage such expectations on that promise? and as a young leader -- >> [inaudible] >> what kind of policy options for you use to, you know, make the best efforts to at least reach that goal? >> thank you for the opportunity.
10:55 pm
[inaudible] my question is very simple. what do you think the future of six-party talks? i mean, under this new leadership? what is your expectation or prospective? thank you. >> i think, you know, in politics whether it's in democracy or autocracies, that the leadership, the biggest obstacle is high expectations. and talk about high expectations. i mean is this young fellow willing to take over and he has to be there for the big april 12 celebration of the nation's strong army. these are about the highest expectations you can imagine which is one of the reasons why all of us are a lot of skeptical of whether this can all be
10:56 pm
carried on. so, your question was then if there are these, expectations how is he going to do this? i just don't know. i don't see an easy way to do this aside from to borrow a term from the obama administration aside from going all in, going all in and doing that give it to china. i mean, that's really the only way. and then the question is just china want to take that? so it's very difficult. on sixth party talks, ambassador pritchard mentioned earlier i think prior to the news on sunday night, it looked like this week we were headed in a direction of slowly getting back to a more sustained dialogue with the possibility of the agreement, the p.o.w. recovery project and then rumors were the possibility of another bilateral
10:57 pm
between the dprk and beijing this week. that is obviously all been put on hold. what does it mean for the future? it's really impossible. all we have is history to remind us that when kim il sung died that there was a period of non-dialogue. there was a summit at the time and the u.s. was in the negotiations with north korea and then there was a delayed in october they were back in the table in geneva and they got an agreement. so i think it is difficult to say. i think at least part of getting back to the six-party talks is the two parties have to want to get back there. the united states and north korea. china always wants to go back what you have to have the two parties who want to go back and at least the initial signals from the u.s. administration as the we were headed back in that direction. so it really depends on with
10:58 pm
north korea wants to do. >> let me add a little on the six-point talks because i would suggest any serious discussion on the six-point talks isn't going to conclude where you wanted to the denuclearization of north korea. so when you're talking about is the phrase no administration wants to your in the talks. but in this particular situation where you have the sudden change in the government and the unknown where are we going to go in the future in terms of where are we going to go in the future there is merit for talks as long as you fully understand it really is not going to conclude in the resolution of the nuclear issue.
10:59 pm
one other point i am going to throw another piece of confusion rather than clarification, you talk of the april 15th celebration of a prosperous nation we have another celebration that we would have had a and that's on february 16th which would have been the 70th birthday kim john il people will not have been 90 days and three months by then. it will be interesting to see how the north koreans observe that. is it the end of the morning that or is it just the midpoint and are they going to really wrapup for the solution for the hundredth the anniversary of kim il sung? an interesting question. >> i want to say something about this expectation for 2012. i actually think that this transition refrains the expectations. and now the benchmark is probably going to be can -- it is the north korean version of

Tonight From Washington
CSPAN December 20, 2011 8:00pm-11:00pm EST

News/Business. News.

TOPIC FREQUENCY North Korea 36, Mr. Morgan 34, China 28, Kim Jong-il 17, U.s. 17, Burma 10, United States 9, Kim John Il 8, Korea 7, North Koreans 7, Clive Goodman 5, Pcc 4, Mr. Tidwell 4, Mr. Murdoch 4, South Korea 4, Scott 4, Heather 3, Mr. Moore 3, Erika Johnson 3, Koreans 3
Network CSPAN
Duration 03:00:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 100 (651 MHz)
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 704
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 12/21/2011